Obama: “It’s not class warfare. It’s math”.

Funny how the left constantly tries to redefine words or terms in order to justify their actions. Current tax rates are referred too as “tax cuts” when they refer to the “rich” but no other class of taxpayer. The fact that the “rich”, as defined by Obama and company, pay the lion’s share of taxes now while the bottom 50% of “taxpayers” pay a combined 2.75% of all taxes is ignored.

And now, with renewed attacks on the “rich”, it’s “not class warfare. It’s math.” Now, I guess, we’re redefining “math” as well. Notice what isn’t being talked about which usually enters any public discussion by the left? Fairness.

In fact, changing the tax rates on the “rich” is a leftist wet dream, because somehow they’re of the opinion that what the “rich” have earned really fell from the sky and they were just lucky enough that it fell in their backyard. So “fairness” is redistribution, by their redefinition of course.

Yes, it is “only math” if you believe in a very pernicious premise – that government has first claim on everything you earn. That you don’t “deserve” to keep what you make.

J.E. Dyer wrote a great post at Hot Air on the subject. I recommend it. What the “it’s math” crowd want you to ignore is this:

If any of us doesn’t deserve to keep everything he has earned, then that man is a slave. Alternatively, he is less than human; he has no moral standing, and no unalienable rights inhere in him. He is like a farm animal.

Of course we all deserve to keep our own money. If it is ill-gotten – stolen, swindled – then it’s the crime that deprives us of it, not any inherent function of the armed authorities to prowl the land in search of “undeserved” bank balances.

The question of what we “deserve” boils down to which came first, the individual human with rights, or the state. America was founded on the principle that the individual human with rights comes first. Any idea that violates that principle is counter to our founding idea. It is not possible to reconcile with our founding principle the idea of collective schemes in which we make some modification to “what we deserve.” We either deserve to keep all our own earnings – money – wealth – goods – or we do not have unalienable rights.

In this case, it is the “rich” who are being used as the farm animals.

Here’s the truth about taxes paid. The “rich” or top 1% pay 38.02% of all income taxes collected. So over 1/3 of all taxes are paid by 1%. Expand that a little and the top 5% pay 58.7% – well over half of all income taxes collected. The top 10% pay 69.94%

So 10% of all income earners are paying 70% of all taxes.

Entry into those hallowed ranks? Well to be in the top 10%, your adjusted gross income need merely be $113,000. “Rich”, right?

Of course not, in fact, most who understand what it requires to live realize that $113,000 is working class. The top 5%’s income threshold is $159,000. And the top 1% is $380,000.

So what Mr. “It’s not class warfare” is recommending is raising taxes on those who already pay 38% of all taxes. And obviously, in the convoluted world of the left, that’s fair.

The president criticized Republicans for insisting no taxes can be raised, and said it would not be possible to improve the nation’s fiscal standing without new taxes on the wealthy.

He rejected criticism that his proposals amount to class warfare, saying that after a decade of unchecked spending, every American has to pitch in and pay their fair share. Otherwise, Obama said, the U.S. will try to cut programs for the middle-class and the poor while protecting tax cuts for the wealthy.

You have to love the so-called reasoning. “After a decade of unchecked spending, every American has to pitch in and pay their fair share”. The government spent it, but it is up to those government supposedly serves to pay it off – try that on your boss sometime. The entire pitch here is to claim a single class of people haven’t paid their “fair share” (fair share being redefined as over 38% of the total for one and only one class) of what the government has spent without consulting them or anyone else.

And 1% paying 38% of the load is fair? How is “every American” pitching in when he’s only talking about raising taxes on a single class … the 38% class? And how isn’t that class warfare?

Raising taxes on the top 1% has become Obama’s panacea for everything. You almost want to say “go ahead” and let the truth finally sink in. The top 1% cannot cover the profligacy of the government in any way, shape or form, even if the tax rate were to be raised to 100%. As taxes go up, the ‘rich’ find ways to protect their wealth. It’s again Econ 101 stuff. And, of course, they have every right to do so. It’s their money, not the government’s.

If any of us doesn’t deserve to keep everything he has earned, then that man is a slave.

Well, Hal-a-Lew-Yeah. I’ve been saying this for years, and was treated like a street-person declaiming the end of the world.
This is perfectly susceptible of being a “by degrees” mechanism, too, my friends. And it has a new, Collectivist wrinkle:
To the extent some of us are yoked to pay for others by compulsion, and those others are linked to us by government, to that extent are we all vassals of government, and not its masters. And government has become an evil that must be resisted.

There is one underlying assumption that seems to be less spoken than the name “Lord Voldemort.”That assumption is that the “rich” don’t get any of the services of the federal government.
I mean, the trade off is always the “rich” get taxed while everybody else loses some services from the federal government, which the “rich” have to pay for.
Funny how that is never explicitly said.

I always view it that the Rich pay way more for defense, the highways, the airports, the FAA, FBI, etc. Yet, from what I can tell, they are entitled to essentially the same services the rest of us are, including the lower 50% who ain’t payin a whole lot, and on this last go round the illegals who (by IRS’s own admission) netted $4 billion in illegal credit returns and get the same defense, etc.

Gives me a different perspective on them using the ‘influence’ of the wealthy – shoot, why not, they’re officially paying more, right?

“Math” as a concept involving certainties appears to be too hard for Collectivists…

Schumer said the $250,000 limit is unacceptable since it will hit the metropolitan area (i.e., his base) disproportionately because of the high cost of living here.
“$250,000 makes you really rich in Mississippi but it doesn’t make you rich at all in New York and there ought to be some kind of scale based on the cost of living on how much you pay,” Schumer said.

” most who understand what it requires to live realize that $113,000 is working class”

Maybe in your neighborhood. Certainly not in mine, unless you colunt anyone with a job as ‘working class’.

“This is not class warfare,” Obama said. “It’s math.”

Once again pointing out the pitiful lack of real education among our ruling elite, particularly our social ‘science’ majors. Here’s a little math for you, BO- Our deficit this year is about 1.5 trillion. Over the ten year time frame you are so enamored of this would be well over 10 trillion. What percentage of that will be covered by your increased taxes? Can you spell ‘trivial’?

About the only argument left for President Obama to make is that Paul, like Warren Buffet, is absolutely happy to give money to Peter. But obviously not everyone agrees with Buffet. Union officials believed the President’s proposal would take ‘billions out of the economy’.

Ruh-rowh…
The MATH seems to be pretty tricky. It involves all kinds of new “levies” or “fees” that hit all kinds of people, including military retirees.
And, for my money, Buffet doesn’t even agree with Buffet. What one DOES is more telling of their true beliefs than what they famously and publicly proclaim. Buffet could just tell his accountant to ascribe his income to “regular income”, and solve his whole quandary.
But the “NEW MATH” from Obama is facially silly. It hasn’t a prayer. It doesn’t add up.